Location of Public Goods and the Calculus of Voting: The Seattle Monorail Referendum*

Abstract

Objectives. In this article we explore how the geographic location of a proposed public good on the ballot in a local referendum influences voting turnout. We argue that voters who live farther away from the good, and are thus likely to bear the cost of the good but have no access to it, would be more motivated to turn out in the election. Drawing on the cost-orientation hypothesis, or negativity effect, ''that people are more strongly motivated to avoid losses than to approach gains,'' we expect these voters to derive higher expressive benefits from the act of voting relative to those of voters located closer to the good. Methods. We examine voting turnout in the 2002 referendum in the City of Seattle on the proposed construction of a monorail. We conduct our study at the precinct level using spatial tools of analysis. We evaluate the effect of accessibility on turnout by means of a curvilinear model that incorporates demographic and political variables. Results. We find that voting turnout is determined partly by accessibility. Turnout is higher in precincts located farther away from the monorail line than in precincts located relatively closer to the line. Partisanship conditions this effect. Conclusions. This study provides tentative support for linking voter turnout to the negativity effect via expressive benefits. Voters' location in relation to a public good may affect directly their political behavior by means of their perceived net gains or losses from the good. . The corresponding author will share all data and coding information with those wishing to replicate the study. The second and third authors are listed alphabetically. The authors are grateful to Cristina Bradatan, Scott McClurg, and the SSQ editor and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and constructive feedback.

Political Decision-making and the Local Provision of Public Goods: The Case of Municipal Climate Protection in the US

“…This study utilises an original dataset and several theories of local political decisionmaking as a basis to examine why municipal governments choose to engage in GHGreducing activities. The municipal political decision-making dynamic has typically been studied in regard to the provision of local public goods and services, such as parks or public transport systems, which are non-rival and non-exclusive but, because they are tied to a particular geography, their benefitswhile diffuse-are largely contained within the community that is paying for them (Feiock and West, 1993;Kinsey et al, 2010;Lane, 2008). This research extends relevant theories by applying them to the production of a global public good, climate protection.…”

Political Geography, Direct Democracy, and the Reasoning Voter: Spatial Proximity, Symbolic Politics, and Voting on California's Proposition 83

“…The present article joins Kinsey and others (2010) and Peterson and others (2008) in highlighting the importance of spatial considerations in voting on ballot initiatives. There is an increasingly apparent utility of modeling political phenomena with the tools of quantitative geography, and the visual and data‐ generating advantages of using a GIS.…”

“…Within the ballot initiative literature, a study by Branton and others (2007) finds that white Californians were more likely to support Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot initiative that sought to deny state services to illegal immigrants if their residence was more proximate to the border. Research by Kinsey and others (2010) and Peterson and others (2008) examines the geographically motivated responses in voting and turnout to a proposed Seattle Monorail referendum in 2002.…”

Who Banishes? City Power and Anti-homeless Policy in San Francisco

“…Urban social geography—the distribution of social groups across a city space—impacts the priorities and risks that different groups face, how they engage in politics, and what they demand from local government when they do (Jun and Musso 2013). City policies and projects impact neighborhoods unevenly, which differentiates political activity across city space (Kinsey et al 2010). A sense of investment in place may also shape residents’ levels and forms of political activity (Kearns 1995).…”